A guest post from Resilient Music‘s Richard Kirstein on the relationship between music rights owners and brands and agencies.
This month Resilient Music published the findings of a research project called “The State Of Music Rights Licensing”. Looking primarily at the UK sync market for marketing communications (both broadcast and online), we wanted to capture the views of licensees, licensors and talent.
- For licensees, we spoke to brand marketers and ad agencies.
- For licensors, we spoke to Heads of Sync at labels and publishers.
- For talent, we spoke to artist managers.
You can see a summary of the findings HERE and over the coming weeks we’ll post more in depth analyses on Resilient’s Music Procurement Blog.
So, why does this matter?
Next month sees the inaugural conference for London Sync Sessions to be hosted by Metropolis Studios on 19th – 21st October. I’ll be moderating a panel on the morning of the final day where we’ll examine the current friction points in the sync licensing process. We’ll use some of the research project findings as stimulus to kick start the debate. If you want to come along, book tickets HERE.
Probably the most relevant findings for the music rights owner community are the comments from brands and agencies. Remember these people are not music experts, they haven’t grown up in the rights business so don’t they think about copyright in the same way that you do. However, these same people are your potential customers with significant budgets and the promotional channels to make a huge difference to the careers of your artists and writers. So it’s a wise move to really understand their mind set which will allow you to serve them better – and so do more business with brands and agencies.
We asked brand marketers and ad agencies this question:
“What would you like to change about how music is found and bought for your campaigns?”
Let’s look at some of the comments and what they mean:
Comment 1:
“Straight-forward buys (price lists) that are pre-negotiated.”
Brands and agencies really struggle to understand why the sync licensing process is so complex and why pricing often appears arbitrary. Of course rights owners will reply that it’s naive and unrealistic to expect commercial catalogue titles to be licensed like production library music – and that’s because to label & publisher sync teams, this distinction is blindingly obvious. Indeed, commercial catalogue sync and production library music are almost different industries. However, to someone in brand marketing or advertising, it’s all just music – they wonder “why is one track so easy and another so difficult & complicated?”.
The training we provide to our brand clients helps answer that question – explaining how commercial catalogue titles have fragmented rights, require prior approvals and don’t have rate card pricing. All different attributes from production library music.
However, the challenge for you is this:
How can you make the experience of licensing your commercial catalogue titles come close to the ease of using production library music?
If you solve this, you’ll attract more customers.
Comment 2:
“Buys that are based on number of views/listens, rather than geography or time.”.
(This comment solely relates to online video – it’s not a comment about broadcast TV & TVR ratings.)
We are increasingly being asked this question by our brand clients, particularly related to “public archive” usage.
Frequently, licensees and licensors think differently about the same issue.
For a brand, an online video has all its impact at launch. If the campaign succeeds, there’ll initially be a big spike in views which tails off quickly. The initial term licence might be one year, yet most of the views may occur in the first month or even the first week. Beyond that, the brand may wish to keep the video on their YouTube channel for further year or two in the “public archive”. It’s still searchable but not promoted. The brand considers this to be a very minor use with minimal views. Understandably, some brands would prefer to license on a pay-per-view basis in this long-tail period – not a high flat fee as is generally the case now
In contrast, many music rights owners take the view that “if it’s online, it’s still an active campaign” and we should charge as such. Brands see this as a simplistic viewpoint and one that won’t win rights owners many friends with marketing and advertising professionals.
So, the challenge for you is this:
How can you make it easier for licensees to keep their archive non-promoted campaigns visible on a more flexible fee basis?
If you solve this, you’ll attract more customers.
Comment 3:
“Music that can be bought for a campaign (and thus can be used across content, without new costs).”
When a campaign is first planned, brands and their agencies don’t always have a complete picture of every activation. Campaigns often develop organically though usually there’s a common creative thread to bind all the elements together. Music is frequently a key element.
Whilst we always encourage our clients to consider music as early as possible, they often can’t clarify the manner in which it will be used – this is all still to be decided. We try to structure deals covering off all possible future options. Sometimes we get it right, other times not. Sometimes music rights owners refuse to grant us options, saying (unhelpfully):
“Let’s do this deal now and handle the rest when the time comes”.
Of course I know this is a standard move to create disproportionate leverage for the rights owner against my client further down the road.
One of the biggest complaints from our clients about the music industry is this:
“They seem to take every possible opportunity to hold us to ransom – There’s little or no sense of loyalty or wanting to build a long term relationship with a customer”.
Of course that’s a harsh view and it’s unfair to tar everyone with the same brush. That said, I sympathise with this perspective at times and have been through many negotiations which prove the point.
For a brand or agency, if they want to use a particular music track across a whole campaign, they want a fee that covers them for all the possible activations. They don’t want to have to keep renegotiating the terms (and feel held over a barrel) every time there’s a new twist or turn in the campaign idea. Of course this may mean paying a higher fee up-front, but if it’s not unreasonable, all sides win within one transaction.
So, the challenge for you is this:
How can you offer brands a flat fee to cover all activations within one campaign without every individual use being fully defined up-front?
If you solve this, you’ll attract more customers.
Comment 4:
“Simpler and more transparent dealings with the different rights holders, i.e. dealing with one party.”
Again, this reflects the wish of brands and agencies who’d like commercial catalogue music to be as easy to license as production music. Of course the reality is very different given that commercial catalogue involves fragmented rights with prior approvals – and it’s incumbent on the brand and agency to identify all the rights owners and cut deals with them.
However, I see a huge variation in the attitude of rights owners in addressing this customer problem. Some enlightened companies can’t do enough to help. For example:
If there’s a small copyright control share of the requested song, a helpful publisher (who controls the remaining share) will offer to assist in contacting the unpublished writer, facilitate clearance and possibly handle the invoicing of licence fees. This makes it easier for the customer.
If the song is completely unpublished but the recording is owned by a label, a helpful label will offer to handle the song clearance, of course with the consent of the songwriters, to make the process easier.
If the recording has session musicians on it, a helpful record label will dig out a list of the players, liaise with the relevant performers union and advise the appropriate fee.
These are just some examples of great customer service that rights owners can provide to win new business and forge strong client relationships. I’ve been fortunate enough to broker deals with enlightened rights owners who behave in this way.
However, I also encounter a “that’s not my job mate” attitude from some rights owners who don’t appear to be interested in helping the brand or agency identify all the various pieces of the rights jigsaw. This is a very short-sighted approach and only goes to exacerbate brands’ and agencies’ perspective about the music industry which they see as not being customer-centric.
So, the challenge for you is this:
How can you act less like a gate keeper and behave more like a service provider?
If you solve this, you’ll attract more customers.
SUMMARY
If any of the above points resonate, come along to the London Sync Sessions on 21stOctober to join the debate. In an increasingly competitive sync market, how you are perceived to behave by brands and agencies will have a huge impact on your success or failure. It’s all about your mind set and the way your company is positioned in the market. Are you are gatekeeper or a service provider? Only you can decide – but make sure it’s a smart choice.
